Guest guest Posted March 28, 2002 Report Share Posted March 28, 2002 > We all talk about the technicalities of doing the medicine, > > and, often, there is the assumption that, if we get those > > technicalities right, we'll also get the right result. At this point > > in my experience, I think it is more a matter of fate, karma, luck, > > call it what you will. It is defintely a matter of connection, Which is one of the reasons why I favor this interpretation of the word qi4. It is definitely a matter of connection. > > this is an interesting point, which most teachers have probably > observed. It of course begs the question that has been asked > so often, then how will learning chinese or studying philosophy > help my practice. There are two closely related questions that have been asked and will continue to be asked, at least by me. You have stated one of them, i.e. how does it benefit? But there is another, which is how does its absence harm? People are already getting great results for > reasons that have nothing to do with knowledge, This is a highly suspect remark. I mean how do you come to such certainty that anything that anybody does has " nothing to do with knowledge " ? so we clearly > can't argue that knowing more is always better. I liked the attitude conveyed in the post that asked, " Are you kidding? " Just because it sort of lightened the whole thing up a bit. But I really don't think you can so cavalierly dispense with one side in such an argument, even though it was just as arbitrarily set up in the first place. I think we can, in fact I think I did, argue that regardless of whether or not knowing more is always better, it is more or less unavoidable. How do you propose that we go about knowing less? I think this really > drives home the point that the clinical utility of such pursuits > (language, philosophy) is not a black and white issue at all. I don't believe that anybody has ever posted anything on this list that suggests that these are black and white issues. For a while, Jim was asking that we quantify, for example, how much language and how much literature constitute an adequate amount. And Z'ev made the point quite clearly that it's the beginning that matters. Everyone that I've seen argue for the inclusion of literacy among the competencies of medical students has favored an approach that says the critical thing is to begin and discipline yourself to make progress at a rate that makes sense according to your individual needs and capacities. The harmful thing is to condemn oneself to ignorance and alienation by cordoning off the language and the literature and placing it on some imaginary other side of some imaginary line that has been artitrarily and mysteriously drawn in the group imagination. The truly harmful thing is for the group, as a group, to continue to condone this kind of treatment for such an important dimension of the subject. I have to admit that I do find a somewhat more black and white evaluation available on the question of whether or not doctors should know the meanings of the words they read and use to study and discuss and perform medical procedures. for > some, it makes all the difference in the world (like me). I think that if you inventory the reasons why, you will find that you have a signficant number of these factors in common with everyone else. I can imagine an individual who might not benefit from knowing what the words mean that he or she speaks, but I certainly would not construct a community standard based upon the assumption that all individuals were like that. I think, generally speaking, that everybody benefits from knowing what the words they use mean. for > others, it serves no pragmatic purpose. Since it looks like you're calling for some sort of concession here, I'm going on record to state that I am not willing to concede this point. I really think at this point > that we are all going to have to agree to disagree about such > issues because our biases are shaped by our personal > experiences. Why? We already disagree, at least those of us who do disagree. So we already have an agreement to disagree. I wish we would disagree a bit more spiritedly. There's actually a lot of other cool things to talk about. If one person had great success with every > advance in his knowledge, how could he perceive otherwise? I f > another has never seen an difference whether he studied or not, > how can you argue against that? Its really a fait accompli. I don't know what fait has been accompli. To me, the chance to inspect people's viewpoints closely and in some detail is enormously valuable. And that is definitely accomplished. But nothing is accomplished from my perspective by attempting to sum up the argument as an agreement to disagree. There are vitally important issues involved here and I think they should remain unsummed up and unagreed upon until such point as there is actually greater group understanding of what's involved. And as always I am grateful to those who take the time and effort to participate. I realize that it gets heated from time to time. People need to engage and withdraw as they see fit according to their own needs and wants. I recommend that everybody take a look at a book by the late and truly great mind that was Richard Feynman called What Do You Care What Other People Think?, Bantam Books, 1989. As Bob Dylans said, " It's alright ma, it's life and life only. " Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 29, 2002 Report Share Posted March 29, 2002 This is exactly why, politically, I was a supporter of the group that eventually became the National Alliance at the infamous, schizmatic Chicago AAAOM convention a number of years ago. People have a hard time understanding how I can publically encourage people to learn to read Chinese, become more knowledgable, etc. and yet, politically, be hesitant and even adverse to mandating such things for the entire profession. As you say, different people get results for different reasons. There's a basic human tendency for people to think what works for them is somehow universally right. However, if we're honest about what we're doing, there's a huge mystery (which most of us try to rationalize one way or another). Recognizing that mystery, I am very hesitant to legally mandate that everyone has to learn and practice this medicine one way. I have a very dear friend who is one of the truly greatest hands-on healers I know. Many years ago, she was part of a group of massage therapists who were studying shiatsu with James Cleaver (now a teacher of Chinese medicine at the Northwest College of Naturopathic Medicine). James was himself intensively studying Chinese medicine with the idea of eventually becoming a Chinese doctor and believed that knowledge of CM was important to doing really high quality shiatsu/acupressure. However, after a couple of years, James recommended that this one student not continue studying the theoretical side of CM. This woman took James's advice and concentrated on honing her palpatory abilities, eventually becoming a world-recognized teacher of cranial sacral therapy and visceral massage a la Barral. Similarly, I once knew a man in rural Colorado who said that he had learned acupuncture in Shanghai after World War II. This man stripped his patients naked and ran his hands over their bodies a half inch above the skin. He did not know the locations or names of any of the channels, did not know the names or locations of any of the standard points, did not know anything about pattern discrimination or tongue or pulse diagnosis. He put needles in wherever he felt " depressions " or " cold spots " in the patient's aura (?). However, he was a great healer in his community and got results with patients I would not even have attempted to treat. While I (and my guess is you too) medicate my personal neuroses by the gathering of knowledge, I know that there are other ways of attempting to manipulate reality. If some people find it inconsistent that I can call for increased educational standards at the same time as I politically defend individuals' rights to march to the beat of a different drummer, so be. Mahatma Gandhi once said something to the effect that he was not interested in being consistent; he was interested in searching for the truth. Bob , " 1 " <@i...> wrote: > , " pemachophel2001 " < > pemachophel2001> wrote: > > We all talk about the technicalities of doing the medicine, > > and, often, there is the assumption that, if we get those > > technicalities right, we'll also get the right result. At this point > > in my experience, I think it is more a matter of fate, karma, luck, > > call it what you will. It is defintely a matter of connection, > > this is an interesting point, which most teachers have probably > observed. It of course begs the question that has been asked > so often, then how will learning chinese or studying philosophy > help my practice. People are already getting great results for > reasons that have nothing to do with knowledge, so we clearly > can't argue that knowing more is always better. I think this really > drives home the point that the clinical utility of such pursuits > (language, philosophy) is not a black and white issue at all. for > some, it makes all the difference in the world (like me). for > others, it serves no pragmatic purpose. I really think at this point > that we are all going to have to agree to disagree about such > issues because our biases are shaped by our personal > experiences. If one person had great success with every > advance in his knowledge, how could he perceive otherwise? I f > another has never seen an difference whether he studied or not, > how can you argue against that? Its really a fait accompli. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.